August 2010 Archives

This ia an amazing chart.  It comes from an article posted at Investors.com.  As you can see, the Iraq War represents a very small part of the current deficit. 

According to the article:

"As President Obama celebrates the official end of combat operations in Iraq, a war and a strategy he both opposed, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that in terms of national treasure, the president's economic strategy has resembled Pickett's Charge during the Civil War more than the surge of Gen. David Petraeus that turned the tide in Operation Iraqi Freedom."

It also needs to be pointed out that if we keep enough troops in Iraq to give the government a chance to stabilize (as we did in Germany and Japan after World War II), the positive change in Middle East politics and balance of power will be well worth it.  Would someone please tell me what President Obama's economic stimulus has accomplished?

The article further points out:

"The CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook published this month puts the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations. The projected cost of the stimulus, not counting interest on the added debt, is $862 billion."

The Democrats have been in charge of Congress since January 2007.  Admittedly, it would have been nice if President Bush had vetoed their budgets, but the fact remains that Congress sets the budget--not the President.  If you want to see deficits spin further out of control, re-elect Democrats in November.  If you believe that federal spending can be restrained, vote Republican.

This article is based on an article in the Washington Post in February and a Heritage.org article in July.  The article in the Washington Post stated that the civilian federal employees and the military would receive a pay increase of 1.4 per cent in 2011.

The article at the Washington Post points out:

"That's much lower than the 2 percent civilian pay jump this year and the military's 3.4 percent increase. The proposed military pay bump is the smallest bump since 1973."

At the same time, the article at Heritage.org points out that:

"The federal government pays its employees substantially more than they would earn in the private sector...(the federal government) pays hourly wages 22 percent above that of comparable private sector workers."

For example, an average sergeant in the Army with four years and service and one dependent would receive $ 52,589 a year, including base pay, housing, subsistence allowances, and tax benefits.  A U. S. postal carrier makes approximately $80,000 a year, included his benefits.

Keep in mind that Congress has not yet passed a budget for the coming year.  The Democrats currently in power do not want to pass a budget until after the November elections--they don't want to make the hard decisions that some of their supporters might not agree with.  It will be interesting to see how all of this all shakes out.

Flying home from California yesterday on United Airlines, I met a really sweet young couple flying to Denmark with their two young children--one child was one and one child was five or six.  They were flying there to spend a few months with the husband's family--he is Danish and his wife is an American.  I thought of this family when the story broke about the terrorists suspects being arrested in Amsterdam.  I realize that Amsterdam is in a different country, but there were people of all ages on the plane with the arrested terrorists.

Yesterday ABC News reported that two men on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Amsterdam have been arrested for "preparation of a terrorist attack."   

According to the article:

"(Ahmed Mohamed Nasser) al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O'Hare."

Al Soofi checked his luggage on a flight going to Washington's Dulles airport for connections on flights to Dubai and then Yemen, but did not board the plane.  Instead, he met Hezem al Murisi and boarded the plane to Amsterdam. 

It is standard practice to remove the luggage on someone who does not board the flight the luggage is going on.  The luggage was removed and inspected.  The mock bomb set-up was discovered.

I have a few questions about this.  Had al Soofi boarded the plane with the luggage, would the fake bomb have been detected?  How good is our luggage screening process?  Are there explosives the terrorists can use that will not be detected?  If so, if they can get a mock bomb through without explosives, all the terrorists need to do is find an explosive that will not be picked up by dogs or sensors.  Also, in this arrest, the terrorists just learned that the terrorists has to be willing to die in the attack--if he does not board the plane with the bomb, the bomb will be taken off.  

The terrorists we are fighting do not hesitate to kill innocent families.  We need to remember that.  The extreme Islamists are at war with any part of civilization that does not adhere to their standard of Islam.  We need to find a way to identify the people who put these plots together and lock them up for the rest of their lives.  Targeting innocent people is not acceptable behavior in any civilized society.

In case anyone has noticed that blog posts have been somewhat irregular for the past two weeks, I would like to explain that I was experiencing the "Griswold Family Vacation."  I will be writing about some of the things I saw in my visit to California in some future posts.  California is a beautiful state--I wish I could magically transport the Southern California weather to Massachusetts!

I will be posting an article about what is happening in the Central Valley in California, where extreme environmentalists have shut off the water to the farms.  This used to be the 'bread basket' of the nation--now it is miles and miles of empty fields.

I also had a chance to see the movie "Despicable Me" with two of my granddaughters.  It is a great movie for young children.  It has a really good message.  It is amazing what is being done with animation in today's movies.

I spent a day at Knott's Berry Farm (mostly at Camp Snoopy).   At the end of the day, the park sells holographic glasses that do amazing things to the lights in the park (only in California!).  The park was clean, well-run, and my granddaughters really enjoyed having their pictures taken with the Peanuts characters.

I also attended a family reunion in Santa Rosa and visited the Charles M. Schultz museum there.

Now it's time to get back to work!

The source for this article is an article by Scott Johnson at Power Line posted today.  His source is a much longer article at Big Peace by Christine Brim.  The article by Christine Brim is much more detailed and well worth reading. 

The White House is presenting a workshop tomorrow put on by a number of government agencies.  The workshop is for leaders of about 20 Muslim groups.  The purpose of the workshop is to provide "funding, government assistance and resources" for these groups.

According to Power Line:

"Working from an Islamic Society of North America email newsletter, Ms. Brim notes that the workshop will apparently afford special access for the organizations in attendance. The organizers pledge to provide "direct access" and "cut through red tape." Readers with long memories may recall that the ISNA is perhaps best known as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Hold Land Foundation prosecution. More good news: an iftar dinner will be held after the workshop."

According to the article at Big Peace, the groups attending are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The article points out:

"The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing Shariah law on all nations and institutions.  Their credo is "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.""

This does not seem to be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.  Somehow I don't believe that the attendees at this meeting are working toward becoming more assimilated into American culture.  (Although the fact that they are looking for ways to get government money might be an indication that I am wrong on that!)  American culture is not perfect, but I prefer our Constitution to Shariah Law.

Ed Lasky at American Thinker posted an article today about another promise made in Obamacare that is simply not working the way it was supposed to.  In the Obamacare plan was a tax credit that was to be given to small businesses to help them with their increased healthcare costs under Obamacare.  Now let's stop right here for a minute.  The people who were selling us Obamacare knew all along that it was going to increase the cost of health insurance for everyone and increase the cost of health insurance for small businesses.  Somehow I don't remember hearing the supporters of Obamacare bring that up in the discussions.   For the true picture of the future of Obamacare if it is enacted as written, google "Massachusetts healthcare reform" and see what government healthcare has done to Massachusetts.

Anyway.  This spring the government mailed out postcards to four million businesses explaining the tax credit program and how it would work.  There has not been a great response.  Why?  The tax credit phases out for companies that pay an average of $25,000 a year to their employees or that employ more than 25 people.  In states where the cost of living is high and workers' wages are high, businesses get no tax break.  In other parts of the country, the tax credit is so low it is insignificant.

The article points out:

"The legislation "is just not doing what we had hoped," says Steven Selinsky, the incoming president of the National Association of Health Underwriters." 

Why is that a surprise to anyone?  Another reason to vote Republican in November!

Ken Connor,  Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC., posted an article at Townhall.com about the recent ruling by Judge Royce Lamberth which places a temporary injunction against President Obama's Executive Order  (which overturned restrictions on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) put in place by former-President Bush).  The problem with the President's Executive Order is that there is a federal law passed in 1996 (during the Clinton Administration) which prohibits federal funding of research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos.

In the article, Mr. Connor wonders:

"Is this the philosophy of science that President Obama had in mind when he spoke of science's "proper place?" Is this why his executive order discontinued funding for alternatives to ESCR, alternatives that have proven more successful than the embryonic approach without any of the ethical controversy? Is this why he felt justified in manipulating the power of his office to override standing federal law? It's clear from the president's words and actions on this issue that the answer to all of the above is a resounding "yes.""

We do need to remember that in the past, policy on ESCRhas been decided by elected officials in Congress.  If President Obama wants the 1996 ban on funding research that creates or destroys human embryos and to discontinue funding for alternative research, he needs to ask Congress to pass a law--not take matters into his own hands.  As Mr. Connor points out, there are valid alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.  There has been progress in treating certain medical conditions using cells from umbilical cords and using adult stem cells.  To defund the research that is bearing fruit in order to make a political statement does not help improve anyone's health.  Hopefully, the judge's ruling will hold and the funding for alternatives to ESCR will continue.

In recent weeks, we have all been hearing all kinds of things about Iran going nuclear.  We have heard rumors of attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel or the United States, and we have heard reports of Russia supplying missile defense systems.   What we haven't heard a lot of is what is happening inside Iran in terms of the relationship between its people and its government.

Michael Ledeen posted an article at the Wall Street Journal last week on some of the internal unrest in Iran.  Michael Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author of "Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West" (St. Martin's, 2009).

Mr. Ledeen points out recent communication problems within the regime.  According to the article:

"A few weeks ago, according to official and private reports, the Iranian air force shot down three drones near the southwestern city of Bushehr, where a Russian-supplied nuclear reactor has just started up. When the Revolutionary Guards inspected the debris, they expected to find proof of high-altitude spying. Instead, the Guards had to report to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that the air force had blasted Iran's own unmanned aircraft out of the sky."

Evidently the Iranian military had deployed the drones, but had neglected to tell the Iranian Air Force.  This sounds more like Keystone Kops than a successful dictatorship. 

There have also been a series of recent attacks against the Iranian oil industry.  A pipeline to Turkey was blown up last month, and there was an explosion in a natural gas pipeline.   There was also an explosion at a petrochemical plant used to convert natural gas to fuel for vehicles.

The Green Movement (the movement that opposes the current government) is gaining strength.  The best solution to Iran going nuclear would be for the current government to fall.  A true democracy in Iran would be a big step toward peace in the Middle East.

The letter than follows was posted on tcunation.com. Snopes has researched the letter and found it to be authentic.  This is a long entry, but well worth reading.

Harold B. Estes is & much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his 70-plus years of service to patriotic organizations & causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a gov't official -- until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

-----------

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.. So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends & enemies despicable lies like: " We're no longer a Christian nation." "America is arrogant" (Your wife even announced to the world," America is mean- spirited. "Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander- in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

The American Thinker Blog posted a story today about a British soldier who returned to England after being seriously wounded in Afghanistan.   Lance Corporal Johno Lee lost his right leg in an explosion in Afghanistan in 2008.

Upon his return to England, Lance Corporal Lee was fitted with a prosthetic leg.  He has been able to function very well, driving to work and living as normal a life as possible.  When Lance Corporal Lee applied for a disabled parking permit with the Notinghamshire County Council, the permit was refused.  He was told that he was still young and "may get better." 

According to the article:

"The disabled war veteran said "I replied that they possibly did not quite understand the situation and I thought it unlikely my leg would grow back.""

The Council has stated that it plans to meet with Lance Corporal Lee to review his situation.  Hopefully, he will receive his disabled parking permit quickly.

The only comfort I can find in this story is the fact that bureaucracy is as bad in Britain as it is in America.  I do wonder how carefully the people in charge read the soldier's application.  Possibly this case will cause the Council to review such applications more carefully in the future.

All of us remember the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.  The fact that this bombing occurred is a tribute to political correctness and the stupidity of attempting diplomacy where strength is needed.

Investors.com posted an editorial yesterday about the prosecution of the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole.  Included in the editorial was the following:

"It's bad enough that our rules of engagement dictated that a U.S. warship visiting a known terrorist haven "was defended by sailors with unloaded guns," as the London Daily Telegraph reported several weeks later. "If we had shot those people, we'd have gotten in trouble for it," Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick, a sonar technician and Cole survivor, told the Telegraph. "We would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing 17 American sailors."

"It's also bad enough that the only reason the Cole was in Yemen to begin with was apparently because the Clinton administration was trying to get the Yemeni government's support for Middle East peace initiatives."

The charges against the Al Qaeda operative who planned the attack, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, have temporarily been dropped. 

The editorial states:

"A filing by the Obama Justice Department last week in the D.C. Court of Appeals stated that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future." A military official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity that it's all politics because, he believes, the administration does not want a high-profile terrorist tried in a military tribunal before major figures held at Guantanamo Bay start having civilian trials -- as the president and Attorney General Eric Holder prefer."

The editorial also suggests that after the November election, al-Nashiri will be added to a case involving the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings pending before New York City U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

It is really sad that we have an administration that does not care enough about the death of American sailors to prosecute the terrorists who killed them.  Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is a terrorist.  Terrorists should not have the rights and privileges of American citizens.  It is also unfortunate that the Obama Administration again has chosen to go against the general wishes of the American people and play politics with this prosecution.  If the Administration were truly comfortable with this decision, they would try al-Nashiri in New York before the November election.

No, this is not a picture of a UFO.  It is a picture taken in 2009 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, by Michael Yon.  The ghostlike image is a result of the Kopp-Etchells Effect.   The picture is from an article at Michael Yon's website.

 According to the article:

"Basically it is a result of static electricity created by friction as materials of dissimilar material strike against each other. In this case titanium/nickel blades moving through the air and dust. It occurs on the ground as well, but you don't usually see it as much unless the aircraft is landing or taking off. The most common time is when fuel is being pumped. When large tankers are being fueled they must be grounded to prevent static electricity from discharging and creating explosions."

The phenomenon is named after two soldiers who died in Afghanistan--one British and one American.  Please follow the link above for more pictures and to read about the heroism of these men.

Please pray for all of our troops who are deployed overseas.

Today's Attleboro Sun Chronicle posted a story about Marty Lamb's recent campaign stop in Attleboro.  Mr. Lamb is running in the Republican primary for Congress in the 3rd District in Massachusetts. 

According to the article:

"Republican congressional candidate Marty Lamb handed out barf bags in downtown Attleboro Thursday, asking voters "are you sick of Congress?""

Marty Lamb is running on a platform of tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, ending illegal immigration, improving the economy, and stopping Obamacare.  Details of his platform can be found at MartyforCongress.com.

I am supporting Marty Lamb in his campaign because I believe he will be willing to vote for legislation that will move Massachusetts and the nation forward economically.  I have talked with him about his ideas and have found him to be a consistent conservative.  I plan on voting for him both in the Republican Primary election and in the general election.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article by Bill Dickens, senior economist specializing in network economics for Tacoma Public Utilities in Tacoma, WA, and an adjunct Professor of Economics at Florida A&M University.  The article describes the impact on the Gulf States of two tax proposals currently being discussed by Ctongress.  Both tax proposals have to do with the production of domestic energy and the companies who produce domestic energy.

The first proposal is to change the way income earned abroad is taxed.  Under current laws, income that is earned abroad and taxed (and paid) abroad is not taxed again by the United States.  Changing this policy would put American-owned businesses at a disadvantage against companies owned in other countries.  At a time when the American economy is struggling, do we really want to make American companies less competitive?

The second proposal involves the repeal of a tax section known as Section 199.  This tax credit was enacted six years ago to encourage job growth in all American industries--from auto manufacturing to the film industry.  However, Congress is calling for a repeal of this tax credit only in the oil and gas industry.  This is a targeted tax change that will only impact the oil and gas industry.  Is that really a good idea right now?

When gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon during the end of the Bush Administration, President Obama stated on one of the Sunday morning shows that he did not have a problem with the idea of $4 a gallon gas, the problem was that the price had risen too quickly.  Looking at the policies of the Obama Administration in the area of domestic energy production, I believe we are moving into an error of very expensive gasoline.  Although gasoline prices are reasonable now, if the ban on drilling in the Gulf continues and Cap and Trade legislation is passed, I believe we will see $5 a gallon (or more) gasoline prices by the end of the winter.

Domestic energy production is a matter of national security as well as economic security.  I am hoping that the elections in November will give us a Congress that will better protect both our national security and our economy.  The current Democrat Congress is doing neither.

On Wednesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the impact of Cash for Clunkers on the current used car market.  Because of the number of used cars destroyed as a result of the Cash for Clunkers program, used cars are scarcer and more expensive.

The article cites the impact of the program on some used car prices:

• Cadillac Escalade - 35.6% increase
• Chevy Suburban - +34.2%
• Dodge Grand Caravan - +34%
• BMW X5 - +33%

Generally speaking, people who buy used cars buy them because they are less expensive than new cars.  A quality used car will last almost as long as a new car and be cheaper to buy.  I live in Massachusetts, where the excise tax on a new car is considerably more than the tax on a used car.  I bought a new car in February.  In addition to the sales tax on the car, I paid a personal property tax of over $500.  Had I bought the same car a year old, that cost would have been closer to $200 or $300. 

The article concludes:

"As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them.  The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new.   By destroying a quarter's worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction.  Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

"In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families.  Nice work."

This is another example of government interference in the free market.   When the government gets involved, there are always unintended consequences.

Today's Boston Herald posted an article about the protest off the coast of Martha's Vineyard by some of New England's commericial and recreational fishermen.  The fishermen were protesting  President Obama's restrictions on commercial fishing. 

The article states:

"The protesters already have reeled in a couple of big fish: In the past few days, both U.S. senators from Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown and Democrat John Kerry, have spoken out in support of the fishermen.

"I have no problem with (Obama) protecting species that need to be protected," Brown said. "But there's been very little flexibility with (regulators) when they get new information that they're wrong.""

Hopefully as more Congressmen become aware of this attack on the commercial fishing industry, the restrictions will be re-evaluated and more realistic fishing levels will be put in place.  Senators John Kerry and Charles Schumer and Congressman Barney Frank have been calling for a change in the current restrictions for some time.  Hopefully, we will see a change in the restrictions in time for the small fisherman to save his business.

We are approaching the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  There is a video posted on the website of the New Orleans Times Picayune of two of the newspaper's reporters remembering a bicycle ride on the Monday after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.  It is a moving video that reminds us how dangerous a hurricane can be.

There is also an article in yesterday's Times Picayune which details how Hurricane Katrina changed the demographics of the city of New Orleans.   The city is now about twenty-two percent smaller and not quite as poor as it was before the hurricane. 

The article points out how the population has shifted:

"The suburbs are different. St. Tammany has grown by an estimated 8 percent since the storm, and St. Bernard and Plaquemines have lost about 37 percent and 15 percent of their populations respectively, according to census data gathered by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center."

The local economy has been helped by the recovery money that has come in for the rebuilding of the city, but the city has been impacted by the nationwide recession.  The city has remained poor, however, and apartment rental costs have climbed to the point where it is difficult for people to afford the rent. 

New Orleans is an amazing city.   Hopefully it will be able to continue as a center for arts and music in the future.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting today that under Obamacare, over three million senior citizens on Medicare drug plans will have to look for other plans. 

Meanwhile, Associated Press posted an article at Yahoo News which put a positive spin on these changes.

Regardless of how you feel about the changes at Medicare, the fact remains that the promise made was the promise broken. 

There were three main promises made by President Obama when the Healthcare program was debated:

• It won't increase the deficit
• It won't raise the cost of health care
• If you like your current healthcare insurance, you will be able to keep it

Regardless of how you spin it, we are watching all of those promises be broken.  Obviously, you cannot lower the cost of health insurance by adding coverage for millions more people.  If health insurance is run by government bureaucrats, someone has to pay the salaries of those bureaucrats.  Whenever the government overregulates something, consumers lose.  It is becoming very obvious that all the promises made were not going to be kept.

There is about two months left before the Congressional elections.  Please understand that a vote for any Democrat is a vote to continue to implement Obamacare.  As long as the Democrats hold majorities in the House and the Senate, the program will move forward and the new bureaucracy will be created.  If the Republicans take the House, the funding for the new bureaucracy can be stopped and the program delayed until it can be repealed.  I do not see healthcare being repealed while President Obama is still in office, but the damage it will do can be limited.  If you believe that Obamacare is a good program, please google Massachusetts health reform (the prototype for Obamacare) and see what has happened in Massachusetts since it was implemented.  If you love your grandparents, please vote Republican in November.

On Tuesday, the Boston Herald posted an article about leaders in the commercial and recreational fishing industries planning a protest outside the harbor at Martha's Vineyard during the President's stay there. 

According to the article:

"The protest is being organized after a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of federal lawmakers -- including the core of the President's Congressional base on banking and health care issues -- have given up hope of working productively with Obama's top appointee for oceans and fisheries, Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

I guess what has happened here is that the fishing industry has realized that the Obama Administration does not negotiate.  The protest is scheduled for noon today. 

The article further points out:

Since her appointment to head the NOAA by President Obama, Lubchenco, who had been an officer of the Environmental Defense Fund and a leader of the Pew Oceans Commission, has pushed to convert the fisheries into commodities markets under a management system known as catch shares.

In a statement to the Times soon after her confirmation by the Senate, Lubchenco's office said her goal was to see a "significant fraction of the vessels ... removed."

With the stocks rebuilding strongly, fishermen wonder at the need to reduce the size of the work force.

There are some real questions about what the Obama Administration is attempting to do to the fishing industry.  There are examples of excessive fines that have put small fisherman out of business and abuses in the enforcement process.    This seems to be an attack on small businesses that create jobs and feed Americans.  Some of these fishing businesses have been in the same family for generations.  These businesses are part of the backbone of the New England (and East Coast) economy.  I am not sure the protest will be effective in changing Washington, but more people need to be aware of what is happening to the fishing industry.

This is another reason to change the composition of Congress.  We need to elect leaders who will protect the small businessman--not drive him out of business with unnecessary regulations.

This is long, but worth reading.

The Royal Project Foundation is a program set up by the King of Thailand in 1969.  The aim of the project was to encourage farmers to grow crops other than poppies (which fueled the drug trade and supported all sorts of unsavory characters). 

According to their website:

"Under the directorship of H.S.H. Prince Bhisatej Rajani,this Royal Project has pursued its mission in collaboration with the Royal Thai government, foreign governments, universities, public and private agencies and volunteers."

The website lists the four goals of the program:

1. Offer a helping hand to all humankind;

2. Ensure natural resources for conserving a sustainable future;

3. Eradicate opium poppy cultivation and opium derived addiction problems;

4. Encourage a wise and proper balance in utilising and conserving land and forest resources.

From what I understand, the program has been successful.  Michael Yon, in a Facebook post, stated that he will be doing some further investigation of the project to see how it might be used in Afghanistan.  Since Michael will be returning to Afghanistan shortly, I hope he will be able to share his information and see it put to good use.

First of all, I would like to say that I was alerted to this story through a Michael Yon post on Facebook.  If you are on Facebook, Michael's posts are very insightful in terms of what is going in the Afghanistan and other countries in that region.  Mr. Yon was embedded with American troops in Afghanistan until a disagreement with General McChrystal forced him to leave.  He is on good terms with General Petraeus and will be headed back there soon.  You can 'friend' him on Facebook to follow his travels.

CNN is reporting today that dozens of Afghani schoolgirls and their teachers became ill when their school was attacked with poison gas. 

According to the article:

"The latest incident, this one at a high school, is the ninth such case involving the poisoning of schoolgirls, said Asif Nang, spokesman for the nation's education ministry.

"Dr. Kabir Amiri said 59 students and 14 teachers were brought to the hospital, and were faring better."

Obviously this is not an isolated incident.  There is something in the Taliban variety of Islam that is very threatened by the idea of women getting an education.  There is a book entitled "Three Cups of Tea" written by Greg Mortenson that deals with the author's experiences with setting up schools for girls in Pakistan.  He encountered many of the same problems--schools being blown up, death threats, etc. 

The article at CNN further states:

"A report compiled last year by the humanitarian agency CARE documented 670 education-related attacks in 2008, including murder and arson. Much of the violence in what CARE called an "alarming trend" occurred at girls' schools."

It would be very nice if all Muslims stepped up to the plate and denounced this sort of violence against women and girls, but obviously that is not going to happen.  Until the part of the world that enjoys freedom and appreciates the blessing of freedom stands up and says no to anyone who opposes education for everyone, this will continue.  If America does not stand up and defeat the people who cling to this ideology, we will regret it.  Some of our ideals will have been lost.

Fox News reported Monday that:

"...under President Obama, the numbers of arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites plummeted by more than 80 percent from the last year of the Bush administration. In the current fiscal year 2010, which ends Sept. 30, ICE has arrested 900 workers."

President Obama stated that his administration would focus its enforcement of illegal immigration laws by targeting workplace activities.  If that were true, why has the number of illegals taken into custody at their work places dropped so drastically.  Somehow, I don't believe it is because there are no illegals working in the country because we have solved the problem.

At the same time workplace arrests are down 80 per sent, the article states:

"...employer audits are up 50 percent, fines have tripled to almost $3 million and the number of executives arrested is slightly up over the Bush administration."

The decision to fine companies and arrest executives is another example of the basic anti-business mindset of the Obama Administration.  I find it interesting that the punishment for hiring illegals under the Obama Administration is aimed at the businesses--not the illegals.  To me, it comes across as just another basic attack on business in America (one that will raise money for the government in the process).

Michael Barone is the expert on American politics--voting trends nationally, statewide, and districtwide.  He posted an article in yesterday's Washington Examiner talking about possible unintended consequences of this year's Congressional and gubernatorial elections. 

According to the article:

"...the optimistic scenario belongs to the Republicans.  If they hold what they have and capture a few governorships (Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin) and a few legislative chambers (the Houses in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania and both houses in Wisconsin), they will control redistricting in 11 states with more than five House seats, including Florida, George, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.  Those states are projected to have 178 House seats."

Now before anyone gets too excited about this, we need to remember the Republican's gift for setting up circular firing squads and shooting themselves in the foot.  Also, if the Democrats control California, the state is big enough to offset any redistricting gains elsewhere.

Mr. Barone also points out the the voters right now do not have predictable party alignments.  Party affiliations are very fluid right now, so that even what was a safe district for one party three years ago could go in a different direction very rapidly.

It is going to be an interesting November.

Red State posted an article today about the impact of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The article states:

"The Obama Administration has filed some 27,000 pages of documents in Federal court which disclose the process by which it decided to forge ahead with a deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, in spite of expert advice, public opinion and a Federal judge's ruling."

This needs to be looked at in context, but first let's look at the impact.  The Administration wants to extend the drilling moratorium until November 30.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the moratorium will cost the area 23,000 jobs.  Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) invited Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, to testify before the Senate Small Business Committee hearings.  Dr. Romer has not appeared and in a conversation with Senator Landrieu stated that the Administration did not currently have economic impact data on the moratorium, but would be initiating a review.

The article points out that the oil rigs, which actually drill the wells, are the economic engine of the region.  To shut these down is to impact all the support industries that supply manpower, parts, transportation to the rigs, and the infrastructure that supports the workers.  The moratorium will have a serious negative economic impact on the entire region.

There is one more part of this picture that needs to be remembered.   On June 18th of this year, a website called Infowars referenced a Harvard study on the impact of President Obama's energy policies.

The article states:

"President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

"That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess."

If the goal is $7 a gallon gas, there might be a few things to think about.  Considering that the cost of gasoline for Congress is paid for by the taxpayer, does Congress have any reason to want to keep gas prices low?  Since the cost of Presidential travel is paid for by the taxpayer, does the President have any incentive to keep prices low?  What will be the impact on the economy and on the average American of $7 a gallon gas?

I really do support the idea of keeping pollution as low as possible.  Clean air is a good thing.  However, American car manufacturers have worked to provide Americans with relatively clean cars.  The move to electric cars will not actually make things any cleaner--it may cut emissions, but how clean is the source of electricity?  We need practical people in our government to formulate cohesive energy policy--people who understand both economics and the environment and are willing to balance the two.  Until we have balance betweem the economy and the environment, we will not have prosperity.

Today's Boston Herald is reporting that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick wants to hire Parsons Brinckerhoff - an architect of the Hub highway debacle - to help build the MBTA's Green Line extension.  Governor Patrick has been highly critical of Republican candidate for governor, Charles D. Baker, for his role in the Big Dig fiasco. 

According to the article:

"Like the Big Dig boondoggle, the MBTA project costs have skyrocketed - ballooning from $560 million in 2007 to $954 million - and will miss a legally mandated 2014 deadline."

The Big Dig was completed in December of 2007.  The project was originally estimated to have a $2.8 billion cost.  By the end of 2006, over $14.6 billion had been spent on the Big Dig.  With a cost overrun like that, why would anyone even consider hiring the same company for a major state construction project again ?

To hire the same company and expect a different result is insanity.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the repeal of Section 9006 of Obamacare.  Section 9006 is the section of the law that requires businesses to issue a 1099 form for every purchase of a gift or service of more than $600.  Each transaction will require a 1099 form. 

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns has introduced an amendment to repeal Section 9006. 

According to the article:

"Johanns report that one of his small-business constituents estimates the provision will add $23,000 to his firm's tax compliance costs.  Every dollar that goes to preparing more paperwork for the IRS is one less dollar available for investments in new jobs.  Considering the Congressional Budget Office's prediction Friday that unemployment is going to remain above 9 percent for months to come, Section 9006 could not be more ill-timed." 

It is unreasonable to expect business to expand when they know they will be faced with the sort of increased paperwork and accounting procedures that Section 9006 represents.  The healthcare bill was over 2,000 pages long.  Unfortunately, I suspect there are many other provisions that would need to be repealed in order for the economy to recover from its present recession.  Businesses thrive (and hire people) when government intervention lessens and businesses have the freedom to grow without requiring new paperwork and accounting procedures every day.  It's time for the government be less intrusive and let growth occur.

Friday's New York Daily News reported that many of New York's construction workers are saying that they will not work on a mosque if it is built on Ground Zero. 

According to the article:

""It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuilt the World Trade Center site."

The idea of refusing to work on the mosque is growing.  One construction worker posted the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog which is for construction workers to sign saying they will not work on the mosque. 

Meanwhile, NBC New York reports that there will be a protest opposing the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero today.

The article at NBC reported:

"Gov. David Paterson has offered to help find developers of the mosque secure another location -- even on state land -- if they agree to move a little farther from the Ground Zero site."

So far that offer has been turned down.

When you look at the whole picture of this controversy, you wonder why New York City issued the permit for the mosque in the first place.  If this were truly about freedom of religion, why would it be so important to the Muslims to build the mosque at Ground Zero?  The other concept to keep in mind is the one of reciprocity.  Let's look at the way Muslims around the world treat people of other religions.  In countries where Muslims are in control of the government, there is no freedom of religion.  In Saudi Arabia, you can be sent to jail for having a Bible.  In Turkey, which actually has a relatively moderate Muslim government, Christian churches keep a very low profile for their own protection.  As we saw recently in Afghanistan, medical missionaries were murdered because the Taliban thought they might be sharing their Christianity.  The concepts of 'honor killing' and sentencing someone to death for converting to another religion from Islam is also a bit severe. 

Ground Zero is sacred ground.  For that reason I believe it is inappropriate to build a mosque there.  I have no problem with building a mosque anywhere else in New York City if the zoning laws permit.  If the people backing the mosque project continue to attempt to move forward with building the mosque, I think they are simply going to stir up more opposition to the project.  I simply do not see this mosque being built without major political upheaval in New York and across the country.

Michelle Malkin posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the 'National Ocean Council', a 27-member panel created by President Obama in late July. 

The article states:

"The panel will have the power to implement "coastal and marine spatial plans" and to ensure that all executive agencies, departments and offices abide by their determinations.  The panel has also been granted authority to establish regional advisory committees that overlap with existing regional and local authorities governing marine and coastal planning."

This is not the way to manage oceans.  Even Chuck Schumer objected.  The article states:

"Even New York Sen. Charles Schumer slammed the administration's junk science-based fishing limits at a meeting this week between NOAA's Lubchenco and Long Island recreational fisherman.  Draconian regulations, he said, according to the New York Post, "put the industry on death's door.""

Please follow the link above for further details on who is on the panel.  Also keep in mind that the legislative branch of our government never got to vote on this measure.  This really is no way to run a government.

Will global warming policies make sweaters more expensive?  "What?" you innocently ask.   On Thursday, Bloomberg,com posted an article about New Zealand sheep farmers giving up sheep farming due to the government carbon credits program.  The government carbon trading program, which began in 2008, pays the farmers more to plant trees than to grow sheep for wool and mutton. 

The article reports:

"The nation's carbon-trading project was expanded in July to require energy producers to pay for their emissions. By 2015, the system will include agriculture, forcing farmers to pay for emissions their cows and sheep make through belching."

The article further points out:

"Even the government says the program will have little impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand ranks 51st in greenhouse gas emissions with 0.2 percent of the global total, according to the United Nations."

It needs to be remembered that when the government subsidizes an activity, there will be more of it; when an activity is taxed, there will be less of it.  This government program could have major implications for the mutton and wool supply in coming years.  As we move to combat global warming (which may or may or not be man-made), we need to remember that the law of unintended consequences is a powerful thing.

Yahoo News posted a Reuters article today about Iran beginning to fuel its nuclear reactor.  Russia is providing the fuel for Bushehr, a nuclear facility that Iran claims will be used to provide electric power to its people.  Russia built the reactor at Bushehr and is committed to fueling it and to taking away the spent fuel rods.

According to the article:

"Iran, which says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, said it needed to enrich to that level as a deal with major world power and the IAEA to supply special fuel for a medical reactor in Tehran had fallen apart.

"Reacting to the Bushehr opening, British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said: "We have always respected Iran's right to develop an exclusively civil nuclear power program.

"The problem is Iran's continued refusal to satisfy the IAEA and international community that its work on uranium enrichment and heavy water projects are exclusively peaceful," he said.

"Israel, widely assumed to be the only Middle East country to have nuclear weapons, has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence, raising concerns Israel could attack Iran's nuclear sites."

Iran has always claimed that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, but its rhetoric against Israel has always been anything but peaceful.  The fueling of this reactor will probably result in an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities at some point in the near future.  The questions remains whether the strike will be done with or without the consent of the United States.

Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace website posted an article today about the upcoming peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The article points out that Palestinian President Abbas is refusing to have face-to-face talks with Israel unless the talks are based on the idea of Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders.  The first thing to remember here is that if the pre-1967 borders did not bring peace in 1967, why should we assume that they will bring peace now?

The article brings out one very important point:

"That "green line" running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that's Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors)."

The article shows the evolution of the idea of making the 1967 borders permanent.   It points out:

"You also hear politicians and diplomats claim that Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

"Anti-Israel forces changed the meaning of 242 by adding one simple article to the resolution "the." They claim that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from "the" territories taken during the Six Day War. The resolution actually says that 'Israel should withdraw from territories' taken during the war (no article). Adding the article changes the meaning from withdrawing from some territories to all territories."

The thing to remember here is that the United Nations has never been a friend of Israel.  In recent years the Arab bloc at the UN has become more powerful.  They have worked to put nations with repressive dictators as rulers on the human rights committee and welcomed leaders who were known terrorists.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will not come until some basic changes are made.  We need to examine the school books of the children in Palestinian schools to see what they are being taught.  Does the message encourage peace or hatred?  We need to look at the children's television programming that is being broadcast in Palestine.  What does it promote?  You can do this research on your own with a good 'google' search.  Until we stop teaching hatred to children, peace will not come to this region.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an Associated Press article today about the last combat troops that are leaving Iraq.  Their combat mission is complete.  There will still be 50,000 American troops in Iraq to be called on if needed and Special Forces to help Iraqis find terrorists.  I am proud of President George Bush for his willingness to complete the mission in the face of the constant criticism of Democrats in Congress (and occasionally some Republicans).  I am proud of the troops that completed the mission and their families for the sacrifices they made.  I am concerned, however, that this is a very small number of troops we are leaving in Iraq.

One of the goals of Iran is to destabilize Iraq.  I fear that because of the small number of troops remaining in Iraq, the Iranians will see an opportunity to create havoc. 

Thank you to all the American (and other) soldiers who secured freedom for Iraq.  The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.  I hope the people of Iraq will be a stabilizing force for democracy in the Middle East and will be able to enjoy freedom for a long time to come.

CNS News reported yesterday that James Miller, the Pentagon's leading authority on nuclear arms, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Even large-scale Russian cheating on a new nuclear arms treaty would not hurt U.S. security because U.S. nuclear strengths would more than offset any Russian violations, the Obama administration has concluded."

Senator John McCain asked him why, if Russian cheating wouldn't matter, had the Administration bothered to negotiate the treaty.  I agree with Senator McCain (that does not happen often).

The article points out:

"The ability of U.S. missile-bearing submarines and bombers to survive any Russian first strike, and to deliver a devastating counterstrike, would be "unaffected by even large-scale cheating" by the Russians, Miller said. That fact will discourage Russia from trying to secretly exceed the pact's limits on warheads, he said.

"What's more, in a crisis the U.S. would be able to add extra nuclear warheads to missiles aboard submarines and bombers - a capability the Russians apparently do not have, Miller said."

Don't count on it.  I really don't understand why we want this treaty.  We can conclude from past experience that Russia's idea of how to comply with a treaty might be different from ours.  We can also observe that Russia right now is not working toward peace.  Russia has fomented trouble in the now independent countries that were formerly part of the USSR.  They have promised missile defense systems to Iran (not yet delivered), and they are openly helping Iran with its nuclear program.  This does not sound like a quest for peace.  So why are they willing to sign an arms reduction treaty?  What's in it for them?

I long for the days of Ronald Reagan--"Trust, but verify!"

Yesterday the Fall River Herald News reported on a visit to Fall River by Republican candidate for the Third Congressional District, Marty Lamb.  In the past week of so, a number of small business owners have come forward to support Mr. Lamb in his bid for the Republican nomination. 

Speaking on the steps of the Government Center Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Lamb spoke about his campaign platform.  The article states:

""It's about the economy and creating jobs," Lamb said. "That's what everybody I'm talking to really cares about. Especially in the cities in the 3rd District. People want to work, they need to work. Over the past 14 years under the current congressman, jobs have been going away, not coming here. We need to step forward and start creating jobs."

"Lamb has some experience in that regard, operating Lamb and Browne P.C., a small, full-service law firm based in Holliston.  

""I'm the only candidate that owns a small business," Lamb said. "I've experienced the difficulties that go along with creating jobs and the problems of retaining jobs.""

This is the candidate we need in Congress.  At his website, Marty For Congress, you will find detailed proposals for solving the financial problems our country is currently experiencing.  Marty is not afraid to go on the record with his plans and solutions.  We need to elect him to implement those plans.  I need to mention here that I know Marty Lamb personally.  Before I retired, I worked for a company that did business with his law firm.  His firm was pleasant to deal with, paid their bills on time, and was run in a totally ethical manner.  I am proud to be supporting him for Congress.  I truly believe that he is the man we need to send to Washington.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about the Ground Zero mosque.  He points out that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio:

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded, How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

Well, if Ms. Pelosi is ready to investigate the funding of those objecting to the mosque, she may have a long list of people to investigate.  In his post, Scott Johnson confesses that he opposes the mosque, but is a volunteer. 

The article goes on to state:

"I have also disparaged President Obama's support of the Ground Zero Mosque at the White House iftar dinner on Friday night. You might want to look into why President Obama backtracked on his support on Saturday before he sent his information minister out to support it again on Sunday. There's something fishy there, don't you think?

"I can't speak for Debra Burlingame, the sister of American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Chic Burlingame. I'm pretty sure she hasn't taken any money either, but the name of that group she's affiliated with -- 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America -- sounds suspicious to me.

"Charles Krauthammer has devoted an entire nationally syndicated Washington Post column to expressing his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. I believe he is remunerated for his work, but I don't think he took any money under the table for the Ground Zero Mosque column. You might want to ask your friends at the Post to check up on him.

"I should add that Michelle Malkin is exhibiting highly suspicious behavior. She not only harbors impure thoughts about the Ground Zero Mosque, she thinks you should be investigated for the Treasure Island land grab. Talk about guilty!

"UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi, Hugh Hewitt is also sounding mighty guilty, and Glenn Reynolds is suspiciously sarcastic!

"MORE: Bill Kristol isn't helping his case either."

I guess I need to figure out where I should go to turn myself in!

The debate on the Ground Zero mosque continues.  It has become a national political issue.  Generally speaking, it breaks politically along liberal/conservative lines.  There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.  Well, there is a new twist.

The same liberal Democrats who support the Ground Zero mosque and tell the conservative Republicans to 'get over it' are protesting a rally to be held in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. 

Andrews Breitbart's blog Big Peace reports some of the comments by civil rights leaders:

"Beck's choice of day and place for the rally "is insulting, is what it is," Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. "August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights."

"Beck's plans are "an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don't necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King.""

They might have looked at the rally a little more closely before they made their statements.  The rally is being called the "Restoring Honor Rally" at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.  It is being sponsored by Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin will be attending.  The rally will also include David Barton, founder of WallBuilders.

According to the article:

"(Glenn) Beck said that he has no plans on turning his rally into a partisan political rally but intends it to be a rally to, "honor the troops, unite the American people under the principles of integrity and truth, and make a pledge to restore honor within ourselves and our country." Beck further says that the date was not a conscious choice but just fit his schedule."

That does not sound like anything Martin Luther King, Jr., would have objected to.

The article concludes:

"Democrat's opinion we should refuse to allow Beck, an American who wants to support his country's military, to hold a rally because it falls on a certain day and is held at a certain location, but we should not oppose people that sport a foreign ideology antithetical to American principles to build at a place that will promulgate that ideology near the same spot where their fellows killed thousands of Americans.

"The pretzel logic the left employs is a wonder, indeed."

I guess the logic depends totally on who is involved.

Yesterday's Washington Times posted a report on the verdict in the Rod Blagojevich trial in Chicago.  Rod Blagojevich was convicted on one count--lying to the FBI, only one of the twenty-four charges against him.  The maximum penalty for lying to a federal agent is five years in prison.  One juror reported that a single, female juror held voted against all the other charges, but agreed to that charge. 

According to the article:

"Mr. Sarnello (one of the jurors), of Itasca, Ill., later told the Associated Press that one woman on the panel "just didn't see what we all saw." Other members of the 12-person jury tried to persuade the holdout to reconsider, but "at a certain point, there was no changing," he said."

The Justice Department has agreed to retry to case after a judge declared a mistrial on twenty-three of the charges because of the deadlocked jury. 

The interesting turn in this trial occurred when Rod Blagojevich reversed his prior decision to testify.  The reason for this was either that the defense felt that they had already won the case and did not want to take a chance on his testimony losing it after it had been won or, along the same lines, Rod Blagojevich testifying in itself would have represented a considerable risk.  Former-Governor Blagojevich was known for his rather flamboyant style and might easily have gotten carried away on the witness stand and said things that would have undermined his defense. 

There is, of course, a reasonable amount of speculation about why the one juror was the lone holdout on twenty-three of the twenty-four counts.  If the Democrats fixed the jury to avoid the convinction of a Democrat governor during an election cycle, they made a mistake.  This verdict, combined with the fact that the Justice Department plans to retry the case, will keep the concept of Chicago political corruption in front of the voters through the election season.  If there was jury-tampering involved, it probably was not the best way to handle this trial.

It is understood by most of the world that the United Nations, the United States of America, and a number of interested parties have been unsuccessful in stopping Iran's nuclear program.  Today's Jerusalem Post posted an interview with former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton regarding Iran going nuclear..

Ambassador Bolton warned that if Russia follows through on its plan to deliver the fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor this weekend, Israel has only a few days to strike the plant.  After the fuel is delivered, a strike will trigger widespread radiation throughout the Middle East.

This is playing out as if it were a chess match.  By announcing that they will deliver the fuel to Iran this weekend, Russia took any element of surprise away from an Israeli attack.  The situation is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the Bushehr reactor, Iran has a number of uranium enrichment plants which are seen as the backbone of its nuclear weapons program.  Experts point out that Israel would be more likely to attack these plants than Bushehr.  Another part of the calculation is the fact that if Israel attacked the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Russia would quite likely provide Iran with the advanced missile defense system it has promised Iran but has delayed delivering.

I have no idea how this will all play out.  I do know that the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons is not good for the prospect of world peace or peace in the Middle East.  I hope that someone (whether it is Israel or the United States) will step up to the plate and put Iran's nuclear program out of action.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has introduced to move pensions from companies that have gone out of business to under the umbrella of federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

The article explains that:

"The PBGC is already significantly underfunded and taxpayers are its ultimate backstop. Yet the Casey bailout could dump as much as $165 billion in new liabilities on the PBGC, while multi-employer plans would get a clean bill of health. What a deal.

"This cause has taken on new political urgency, and no less than Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin has endorsed the bill. The reason for the rush is new rules that may soon be issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the green-eyeshade outfit that dictates how companies keep their books. Those proposed rules would expose the multi-employer time bomb."  

The article reports:

"Thus the election year urgency to pass the Casey bill. If Democrats could shift orphan company pensions to the taxpayer, the liabilities for the remaining companies would fall dramatically, and the multi-employer scheme could continue. Unions and employers could keep promising current workers fabulous pay and benefits, without which they have little chance of stemming their continuing decline in membership.

"The losers? Those would be existing retirees in multi-employer plans, who were also promised such benefits but whose pensions would now be dumped on the feds. Even under Mr. Casey's bill, payouts to current retirees would be limited to $21,000 a year--a fraction of what workers expected to receive."

The bottom line here is very simple.  Unions will not have to use their dues to keep their pension funds solvent--the American taxpayer will do it.  Why would the taxpayer subsidize union pensions at the same time Social Security is operating at a deficit?

Stay tuned.  This legislation has a hight priority for the fall session of Congress.  It needs to be stopped.

This story is based on two sources, a Washington Post article posted Monday, and an article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air also posted Monday.

The Washington Post reports:

"Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope."

The drug in question is Avastin.

The article further states:

"Avastin was the first drug designed to fight cancer by blocking blood flow to tumors, which has been hailed as one of the first significant innovations in decades in the war on cancer. But Avastin is also one of the most expensive of a new generation of anti-cancer medications that only eke out a few extra months of life."

The article at Hot Air points out:

"With the new ObamaCare regime in place, the issue of cost has now become openly part of the FDA process.  This is a perversion of their mission, which is supposed to only involve product safety and effectiveness, not bean-counting.  If Medicare doesn't want to cover Avastin, that should be a separate issue handled by CMS and HHS.  This strongly suggests that the FDA has become politicized to a degree where their recommendations lose credibility -- a dangerous situation for consumers and providers alike."

This is one of those articles that I can honestly say I have no idea what the right answer is.  If you follow the link to the Hot Air article, you find the story of Leslie Twohig, 48, of Lothian, Md., who has been taking Avastin for eight months and credits the drug with helping her survive.  How much is her life worth?

The only thing I can conclude is that I believe to take an expensive drug to extend a period of extreme suffering is not right, but to take an expensive drug to prolong a life that is functioning well makes sense.  However, that is a personal opinion and I have no idea how it would work in a health insurance setting (particularly one run by the government). 

It seems to me that when we take treatment decisions away from doctors and put them in the hands of government bureaucracies, we are moving away from quality healthcare--not toward improving the system.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting today that the Department of Justice has completed its six-year investigation into Tom DeLay's relationship with corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and found that there were no valid charges against Tom DeLay. 

The article reports:

"The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay's lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

"The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington's top power brokers."

Regardless of what you think of Tom DeLay, this whole lawsuit was an example of the Democrats using the Department of Justice for political purposes.  Tom DeLay's political career was destroyed and the charges against him were used to defeat his political party in an election.  There was no substance to the charges, but they were still used very effectively against Tom DeLay and the Republicans. 

The outcome of this case should make us all think very carefully before we vote in November.  The time has come to believe very little of what you see and less of what you hear.  Do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and vote carefully.

CNS News posted an article today stating that Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Arizona, claims that the  U.S. Border Patrol has pulled back from enforcing the border in his county and neighboring counties because it is 'too dangerous.' 

According to the article:

"Dever stressed that the Border Patrolmen are ready and willing to perform their mission of securing the border, but that Border Patrol managers had determined that in "some places" the danger was too great and they wanted to avoid the risk of an international incident such as a cross-border firefight."

Evidently the fear of provoking an international incident is more important than protecting American citizens. 

Customs and Border Protection replied to these charges by saying:

"There are areas down there in the Tucson Sector where for officer safety reasons, officers aren't up on the line. For whatever reason--it may be a remote area," said a CBP spokesperson. "We still have the means to detect entry, whether it is a sensor or a scoped vehicle. So the entry is detected, but the apprehension of the undocumented migrant isn't affected until they reach a safe area."

Somehow I wonder if everyone detected is actually caught.  The thing to remember here is that there are many people coming across the border illegally who are not simply looking for a better life where they can earn money to send back to their families.  A porous border is an open invitation to terrorists to smuggle people and weapons into America without fear of being stopped.  We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

Today's U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about President Obama's remarks on Friday night and Saturday morning regarding the mosque to be built at Ground Zero.  If you question my statement that the mosque will actually be at Ground Zero, please remember that the building that will be torn down to build the mosque was damaged on September 11, 2001, when the tail section of one of the planes fell through the roof after flying through one of the towers.

The opening statements in the article are quotes from President Obama:

One of the statements I have heard from some of our politicians is that the building of the mosque is a local issue for New Yorkers.  I would like to point out that September 22, 2001, represented an attack on America--not simply New York. 

I would also like to mention that as I was driving around this morning running errands, I had an opportunity to listen to some of the local Massachusetts talk shows that I generally don't get to hear.  If the callers on Massachusetts local talk shows are any indication, this is a national issue.  I don't think anyone would argue that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning allows.  The problem is not one of rights, but one of sensitivities.  Anyone who understands the history of Islam and the significance of originally calling this mosque the Cordoba Mosque realizes that building this mosque is a provocative move.

Yes, the Muslims have the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.  No, they should not be allowed to do so.

Fox News reported Friday on a press conference held by Maxine Waters to explain her roll is acquiring bailout money for a bank in which her family held a financial interest. 

According to the article Congresswoman Waters stated:

"...she had to intervene with the Treasure Department on behalf of minority-owned bankds seeking federal bailout funds -- including one tied to her husband -- because the Treasure Department wouldn't schedule its own appointments."

Congresswoman Waters further stated:

"...she reached out to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in late 2008 when his department failed to respond to the National Bank Association's request for a meeting."

That is very interesting since when the meeting was actually held, the only bank (out of an organization representing more than 100 minority banks) that showed up was OneUnited, the bank in which she had a personal interest. 

Congresswoman Walters says that she has not violated House rules and that she will not cut a deal (but obviously, if she actually did anything wrong, it was George Bush's fault!).  It is going to be an interesting autumn.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a federal land grab proposed by the Obama Administration.  Mr. Morrissey points out that the federal government already  controls one in every three acres of American land. 

The article reports:

"At a "listening session" in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for "the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.""

It should be noted at this point that the extremist elements of the environmental movement want the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight.  The Fund is currently supported by receipts from the government's offshore oil and gas leases.

The article points out that:

"...in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters."

In reponse to its actions, the Obama Administration received a letter from Texas state officials stating the following:

""In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states... Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state's citizens.""

The thing to remember here is that the more land the government owns, the less land the private sector owns.  The less land the private sector owns, the less land is available for private sector use that might grow the economy.  Private sector uses of land that might apply in this case might be family recreation areas, in New England, ski areas, camping areas, and other businesses that would hire people, make a profit, and pay taxes.  This is another example of the administration's lack of understanding of how the private sector grows the economy.

If you follow the link above to the Hot Air article, there is a clip from the movie "Blazing Saddles" that deals with land grabs!

Thursday's Science Daily website posted an article about the effects of playing Nintendo Wii on people who have Parkinson's disease.  Parkinson's disease is a degenerative disease that impairs motor skills. 

Dr. Ben Herz of the Medical College of Georgia conducted an eight-week pilot study where 20 Parkinson's patients spent an hour playing the Wii three times a week for four weeks. 

According to the article:

"Participants showed significant improvements in rigidity, movement, fine motor skills and energy levels. Perhaps most impressively, most participants' depression levels decreased to zero."

The article concludes:

"Game systems are the future of rehab," Dr. Herz says. "About 60 percent of the study participants decided to buy a Wii for themselves. That speaks volumes for how this made them feel.""

The idea that people who suffer from Parkinson's disease can enjoy themselves by playing Wii and at the same time improve their symptoms is fantastic.  Our local senior center also has a Wii that seniors can use during their time at the center.  This is definitely a situation where something designed to be fun actually has another really valuable use.

I was fortunate today to attend a seminar put on by an anti-terrorism expert.  There is no way I could actually condense the things that I heard into a blog post.  I do, however, want to share the opening quote of the seminar because it is definitely food for thought.

"Only a coaliton of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States."

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka Carlos the Jackal,  in Revolutionary Islam, pub. 2003

The seminar provided a lot of history and background on terrorism in the United States.  It was totally enlightening, but also disturbing.  It also pointed out the dangers of substituting political correctness for truth.  We live in a time of danger that requires honesty and vigilance on the part of Americans.  I hope we are up to the task.

On Thursday, the New York Post reported that General Motors planned to issue an initial public offering soon.  This action represents the government attempting to sell its interest in the company to private investors.  The writers of the article point out that in their minds the General Motors bailout was a model of corruption and cronyism.

In 2009 the government bought a majority stake in General Motors for $50.  This represents an amount equal to General Motors' market capitalization in 2000. 

The details of the bailout by the government were in violation of normal backruptcy procedures.  Bondholders, who loaned GM a total of $27 billion, received 10 percent of the company.  The government loaned $50 billion and received about 61 percent.

The article futher reports:

"And the union -- in return for the $20 billion that GM owed its health trust -- got a remarkable 17.5 percent of the stock plus $2.5 billion in cash plus $6.5 billion in preferred stock carrying a dividend of about 9 percent.

"In other words, the UAW got three to four times as much as the bondholders for a smaller claim on GM's assets. The union even boasted to its members in May 2009 that it had made no concessions on pay, health care or pensions in the restructuring."

This was an example of the government choosing favored and unfavored groups.  Unfortunately, we are constantly seeing examples of this in the way TARP money and stimulus money is being handed out. 

The article wonders if small bondholders who were burned by the actions of the government in the General Motors bailout will be reluctant to invest in companies in the future.  Unfortunately, until the Obama Administration revises its policies on how businesses and investors are treated, economic growth may remain slow.

Informed sources are predicting that if the Democrat party loses the House of Representatives in the November election, there will be lame-duck session of Congress after the election to pass some of the legislation that the Democrats can't seem to get passed now.  The logic is that since many members will have been voted out and thus not have to worry about being re-elected, they will be willing to vote for some of the more unpopular bills--Cap and Trade, Card Check, and tax increases.  I suppose that is possible, but it really would be political suicide for the Democrat party.  When I thought about that, I wondered why, even after the global warming scandals, the Democrats would still be pushing Cap and Trade.  Well, I think I have my answer--follow the money!

There was a very interesting article at the American Thinker yesterday.  The article reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange is running out of money and laying off employees.  What is the Chicago Climate Exchange?   It is a company that trades 'carbon credits.'

The article points out:

"The only surprise is that Richard Sandor, who founded CCX in 2003 and was dubbed a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment" in 2007, is being retained as an advisor. "Voluntary" trading of greenhouse gas emissions on CCX has all but dried up and prices have plunged from a high of over $7 per ton in 2008 to just 10 cents now, making recent stock market losses look rosy by comparison. Not exactly what Sandor, who once predicted a $10 trillion worldwide carbon market, expected would happen."

Trading carbon credits is a very ethereal concept.  In essence, you are paying a company to allow you to pollute, and theoretically they will use the money to pay someone to plant a tree somewhere.  My husband keeps threatening to print up a business card saying that if someone will pay him $5, he will not take a shower for a day, thus saving the environment.  We could debate what that would do to his immediate environment, but you get the picture.  However, the interesting part of the article is at the end.

The article points out:

"The biggest losers have been CCX's two biggest investors - Al Gore's Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs - and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors."

Now I understand why Cap and Trade is still being pushed, even though it may destroy the American economy and the Democrat party--look at who the investors are!

John Fund posted an article in today's Wall Street Journal about the plans for the lame-duck session of Congress to convene after the November election. 

The article reports:

"This week, the House voted down a resolution opposing a lame-duck session to tackle hot button issues such as new taxes and climate change. Even though six Democrats joined Republicans in voting against considering such legislation before the new Congress is seated, Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced the Senate will nonetheless return on November 15, then take a Thanksgiving break, then come back for more business on November 29, with no specified target date for adjournment."

The Democrats are planning "one of the most significant lame-duck sessions in the history of the United States."  The possible agenda includes climate change, increased taxes, and potentially any other items that could not be rammed through before the election.

The name of the John Fund article is, "You Vote, They Don't Listen."  That seems to be where we are right now.  

The only way to deal with this is to keep track of anyone who votes for any of this extreme legislation in the lame-duck session and to make sure that that person is voted out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.  Not only are the voters' wishes being ignored, Congress has chosen to flaunt the fact that the will of the voters does not matter.  It is time to remind all of them who pays their salary.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an editorial entitled, "The Cabinet From Another World."  I love the title. 

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has worked for the government all of her life.  She was part of Carter White House's Office of Hispanic Affairs, Los Angles County insurance commissioner, served in the California Assembly and Senate, and then went to Washington, D. C. to represent California's 32nd District.

After three years in the private sector, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner went to work in 1988 for the Treasury Department.  He worked for the International Monetary Fund from 2001 until 2003.  In 2003 he took over as President of the New York Federal Reserve.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was the governor of Washington from 1997 to 2005.  Prior to that he was a criminal prosecutor.  Later he served in the state legislature.  He did have limited private sector experience as a rainmaker for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an international law firm from 2005 to 2009.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been in the public sector since 1987.  According to the article:

"...the Berkeley physicist is hostile to private enterprise to the point of blaming "free market forces" for not cutting carbon dioxide emissions." 

President Obama has only one year of experience in the private sector (immediately after college graduation).  The American economy is not a place for on-the-job training.  I firmly believe that leadership comes down from the top.  If no one in the President's Cabinet has ever run a business or has practical knowledge of how to run a business, chances are that the perspective of a businessman will not be represented in Cabinet meetings.  Businessmen are not evil--they are the backbone of the American economy.  Until those in the current administration begin to respect the contributions made by the average businessman, they will probably not be able to improve the economy.  They are simply looking in the wrong place.

On July 30, the Washington Examiner posted a list of some of the eithics charges against Charles Rangel.  The list included things that were unique to the House of Representatives ethics rules, but it also included things that are generally regarded as breaking the law.  The list included using official stationery to solicit funds for a New York college center named after him (obviously a House ethics issue), accepting favors and donations that could be seen to influence decisions in Congress (House ethics and possible corruption issue), a pattern of submitting financial statements that were incomplete and inaccurate (this is the man who is in charge of writing the tax code), misuse of a rent-subsidized apartment in New York City (I suspect he is not the only person guilty of that) and finally, failing to report rental income for a period of eight years (I strongly suggest you don't try that one at home!).  As you look at this list, you could justifiably say that individually each item really doesn't amount to much--he didn't murder anyone and there are no bank robberies listed.  But what would happen to you or me if the IRS discovered that we had not reported income on a rental property for eight years?

Meanwhile, yesterday's New York Post reported on Charlie Rangel's 80th birthday party.  Congressman Rangel partied as if nothing were wrong.  Well, something is wrong.  As a Congressman, this man has shown a pattern of contempt for any law or ethics rule that would prevent him for doing something he wanted to do.  That in itself is more important than the specifics of the laws and rules broken.  One of the tenets of America is that all men are equal under the law.  The problem with Charlie Rangel is that he considers himself more equal than the rest of us.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air which cited a Pew Research Center claim that 8% of all American babies are born to illegal aliens. 

According to the article:

"Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center's report."

The lure of having your child declared an American citizen because they were born in America is powerful.  However, when you closely examine what the 14th Amendment actually says, the assumption that the children of illegal immigrants are automatically granted citizenship may not be correct.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"The 14th Amendment makes one condition in its language: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  So far as I know, that has led courts to consider children born of legal immigrants citizens of the US, since they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of America and its laws. A case can be made that the clause could restrict birthright citizenship to only those legally in the country -- and it would certainly be easier to float a test case with a deportation order than it would be to amend the Constitution.  Why not let the courts have a crack at it first?"

I would feel more comfortable with that idea if I trusted the courts, but actually, the courts have a better chance of dealing with this problem than an attempt at amending the Constitution.

Power Line reported yesterday:

"Two days ago, the Washington Times reported that the union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unanimously passed a "vote of no confidence" for the agency's leadership. The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, stated that ICE has "abandoned" its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty. The vote, by the Union's Council, was 259-0."

Aside from the fact that the mainstream media has not bothered to report on this, what does it mean?  The union denounced John Morton, head of the ICE, and Phyllis Coven, an assistant director in the office of detention policy and planning.  The union stated that public safety and the integrity of the agency would be better served without these two people.  The article lists a number of problems the unions have with the way that immigration law is currently being enforced (or not).

The article concludes:

"The Obama administration has been touting the fact that deportations of illegal aliens have increased by about 10 percent over what they were under President Bush. But according to the union, illegal immigrants now being held in state and local jails seek out ICE agents for deportation to avoid prosecution, conviction and prison terms. Criminal aliens, it says, "openly brag" that they are taking advantage of a broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes -- while U.S. citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences."

I recently heard a speaker list the things that bring unity and security to a country.  They were--a common culture, a common language, and secure borders.  I can't remember who the speaker was, but I agree with him and believe that secure borders are a matter of national security as well as the preservation of the country.

Yesterday's USA Today posted a story about policymakers in Washington reconsidering how much the government should be doing to help people own their own homes.  I should explain that my husband and I bought our first house in 1969 with the help of a Veteran's Administration loan.  Although I have been a homeowner for most of my life, I am very naive about the intricacies of buying a house or how that has changed over the past 70 years.

The article points out:

"...Freddie and Fannie, with their government backing, allowed the proliferation of 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages -- a product that lenders would otherwise shun. Reason: Long-term, fixed-rate loans struggle in any interest rate scenario. If rates rise, banks are squeezed, because their revenue remains fixed even though they have to pay more for deposits and other funding. If rates fall, homeowners refinance. "No rational market participant is going to bear that risk," Date says.

"Long-term fixed-rate mortgages make sense only if the government is absorbing some of the risk. Reforming housing finance, Date says, could jeopardize the future of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages or raise interest rates on them, perhaps a quarter to half a percentage point."

I don't necessarily agree with that statement.  Banks make money on thirty-year fixed rate loans.  The interest over time on those loans is at least twice the value of the house.  The fees banks charge for refinancing home loans vs the cost to the bank allow them to make a profit on the refinance.  I don't begrudge them their profit, but I don't believe the thirty-year mortgage is a bad product for the banks.

The article points out what the housing mark was like before World War II:

"...Banks demanded 50% down payments for mortgages that would last just five or six years; then, the homeowners would have to cough up the balance in a balloon payment. Homeownership remained mired around 40%."

One of the conclusions of the article:

"High homeownership rates also impose economic costs. They lock workers into houses that can be tough to sell, especially in recessions, so it's harder for them to move to find new jobs. The percentage of Americans changing addresses hit a record low 11.9% in 2008 before bouncing up a bit last year; the so-called moving rate exceeded 20% as recently as 1985.

"Florida has found that U.S. cities with high homeownership rates tend to lag behind other cities in job creation and earnings. He argues that the government should nudge the homeownership rate lower, perhaps to around 55%, by cutting the subsidies that prop it up."

Again, I disagree.  One of the main things that props up home ownership is the tax deduction for mortgage interest.  Although that tax deduction is not what it used to be due to low interest rates, on a large mortgage it is significant, along with the fact that building equity in a house over a lifetime is a good thing.

Based on personal experience, I have a few comments.  My father was a returning World War II veteran.  A few years after returning from Europe, he and my mother bought a house in Levittown, New York--their first house--small houses built specifically to be affordable housing for returning veterans.  Because of the corporate structure in the 1950's, by the time I entered sixth grade, I had attended five different elementary schools--as my father moved up the corporate ladder, we got transferred.  I am really not sure I would recommend that experience (although it helps me relate to the military branch of my family).  (I learned about the War Between the States in North Carolina in fifth grade, then learned about the Civil War in New Jersey in seventh grade!)

In my (humble?) opinion, the thirty-year mortgage would survive without government intervention.  Home ownership, because of current tax breaks, is a good thing right now.  If those tax breaks go away, it might be time to reconsider.  Also, generally speaking, over a lifetime of home ownership, equity will be built and some wealth acquired.  I am not an economist, but unless that changes, owning a home is a good thing.  I don't think it makes sense to aim for a lower percentage of home ownership.  Most homeowners take pride in their homes and work to keep that investment in good shape.  Home ownership is part of being a responsible adult and meeting your obligations.  Maybe the problem is that our society has lost its sense of responsibility, not that the government is helping too many of us buy houses.

CBN News is reporting today that on Tuesday Rifqa Bary turned eighteen.  As you may recall from a previous RightWingGranny article, Rifqa was the subject of a lawsuit when she fled her parents home after converting to Christianity.  She publicly stated that because of her conversion, she feared for her life.

Rifqa Bary feared what is commonly termed an 'honor killing.'  Under Muslim Sharia law, it is acceptable to kill a family member if they are believed to have brought disgrace upon the family.  Converting to Christianity would fall into that category.  Unfortunately, there has been an increase in honor killings in America in recent years.

The Daily Beast on June 8 of this year posted an article about honor killings in America.  Their post stated:

"Honor killings don't only happen in the Middle East: The brutal Arizona killing last year of Noor Almaleki by her own father has catalyzed Human Rights Watch and Marie Claire magazine to join together in a campaign to renew the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which expired in 2008. Noor's father, Faleh Almaleki, disapproved of her American lifestyle (wearing jeans, posting on MySpace) and dreams (marrying for love). He beat her and ultimately ran her over in his SUV, not once but twice, to prevent her from dishonoring the family, equating her with a "small fire" that needed to be extinguished in order to keep the family safe. He is in jail, awaiting trial for first-degree murder. "For an Iraqi, honor is the most valuable thing," he said after his arrest. "No one messed up our life except Noor." Noor's mother supported him, saying, "You are not a criminal. I know how good-hearted and compassionate you are.""

I daresay that in the 'American culture' a man who ran over his daughter twice would not be considered good-hearted and compassionate.  If you follow the link to The Daily Beast, you will find a link to a Marie Claire article dealing with the rise of honor killings in America.

I have no idea how real the threat to Rifqa Bary is.  I do know that if the threat is real, our courts have an obligation to protect her in any way they can--restraining orders, etc.  I wish Ms. Bary a long, productive life lived outside the shadow of threats against her.  Happy Birthday, Rifqa.  May you celebrate many more.

The U.K. Guardian commented yesterday on Robert Gibbs' remarks regarding the criticism of President Obama from the left. 

The article quotes an interview with The Hill where Robert Gibbs states:

""I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

"The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality.""

We don't need to get too excited about what Robert Gibbs is saying.  The Obama Administration will need to move considerably toward the center of the political spectrum to be re-elected in 2012.  Moving away from the political left is a wise move at this point.  Elections are won in the center--20% of the left will always vote left, 20% of the right will always vote right, the campaign will be for the 60% that is somewhere between the two.  The remarks of Robert Gibbs are the beginning of the courting of those votes.  The liberal base that elected Barack Obama will not be voting for Republicans under any circumstances; therefore, (according to the Obama Administration) if alienating them will insure an election victory in 2012, let's get on with it!

CBN News posted an Associated Press article today about progress being made on a museum to commemorate September 11th.  According to the article:

"The Sept. 11 museum is taking shape 70 feet below ground, a cavernous space that provides an emotionally raw journey and ends at bedrock where huge surviving remnants and spacial voids reveal the scale of the devastation of what once was the World Trade Center."

The design of the museum will be defined by the slurry wall that kept the Hudson River from inundating the Financial District and by other huge artifacts.  The museum is scheduled to open in 2012. 

The article explains:

"Thousands of unidentified remains of 9/11 victims will be stored in the museum, in an area reserved for the medical examiner's office; an adjacent room will be set aside for family members. These areas will be off limits to the public."

I am grateful that the people in charge of this project are making an effort not only to remember those who died that day and respect their loved ones, but to illustrate for the rest of us the enormous size of the tragedy.

Like Pearl Harbor, this is a site that is hallowed ground and needs to be treated as such.

Yesterday at RightWingGranny I reported on the plan by Greg Gutfeld to open a gay bar next to the site of the proposed mosque at near Ground Zero.  Mr. Gutfeld says that he is serious about his plan and is beginning to raise funds for the project. 

An article at the Washington Examiner details the response from the group preparing to build the mosque:

"...That situation is worth savoring alone but then when you find out that Gutfeld managed to get a comment from the builders of the new Park51 mosque about his project.   Their response is reproduced below:

@greggutfeld  You're free to open whatever you like.  If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog

Note to the people planning to building the mosque:  You're free to build wherever you like.  If you won't consider the sensibilities of Americans, you're not going to build dialog!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the proposed mosque on Monday.  Mr. Morrissey's article referenced an article written by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday.  From what I understand, both authors are what we would call 'moderate Muslims' who do not embrace the practice of what they discribe as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The article in the Ottawa Citizen concludes:

"If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S.  We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

"As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

"Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

The authors of the article in the Ottawa Citizen have no illusions about what radical Islam has done and is doing worldwide.  I just wish some of our elected officials were as willing to face the truth.

Fox News posted an article today about the State-Department-sponsored overseas tour by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero. 

The article explains:

"The State Department confirmed Tuesday that the administration is sponsoring Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which is described as part of a program to send Muslims abroad to educate other countries about the role of religion in the United States. Rauf made similar trips during the Bush administration."

This is not a good use of taxpayer money, regardless of whether or not it has been done before. 

The American Center for Law and Justice has said it will file a protest letter with the State Department demanding the government halt its sponsorship of the trip.

The article states:

"Rauf has emerged as a controversial figure because of his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, which is how the U.S. government classifies the group. The imam told "60 Minutes" in 2001 that U.S. foreign policy could be considered an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks, though he said in the same interview, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.""

I understand that the goal of the State Department is to bring harmony between America and other nations, but at some point we need to realize the characteristics of some of the people we are dealing with in the Muslim world.  There may be moderate, peace-loving Muslims, but there are also Muslims who kill doctors bringing sight to poor Afghanis and celebrate the act.  To deny that some of the people we are dealing with are not peace-living is naive at best and stupid at least. 

I resent the fact that my tax dollars are paying for this trip.  I have no doubt that Mr. Rauf will use this trip as a fund-raiser to finance his mosque.  The State Department has no business sponsoring this trip. 

Today's Daily Caller posted an article on the progress of the latest stimulus bill. This week, the House of Representatives is taking a short break from their vacation to return to Washington to pass a $26 billion spending package partially intended to keep states from laying off teachers.  Critics are calling it a "bailout for teachers unions."

In order to make the bill deficit neutral, the Senate version of the bill cuts $12 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (food stamps).  The cuts will begin in 2014.  Unfortunately, this is typical of the kind of thing the current Congress is doing.  The money for the teachers union is being spent now.  The cuts will not take effect until 2014.  By that time, people will have forgotten what the cuts were about and the money will be restored without an argument.  I am sure that somehow the Democrats will find a way to blame the Republicans for denying food stamps to hungry people.  Can you imaging trying to run your household budget that way?

The article states:

"(The bill)...includes no requirements that school districts balance their budgets or report on whether the money is making a measurable effect in the classroom.  Support for the bill has mainly been driven by the Federation for American Teachers, the largest group that represents teachers' interests, which has donated more than $1.7 million to Democrats in 2010."

There are better ways to run a government.  We need to remember that in November.

The question everyone is asking during 'recovery summer' is, "Where are the jobs?"  Well, an awful lot of them are in the federal government.  CNS News reported today on the findings of a Heritage Foundation study:

"The Heritage report also found that government jobs - in addition to being more lucrative - are almost impossible to lose. Despite a national unemployment rate that remained at 9.5 percent, federal employment has grown during the recession.
 
""Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy," the study documented. "Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000 - 12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.""

The study also found that:

"On average, federal employees earn 60 percent more than the average private sector employee - $79,000 vs. $50,000 respectively. Add in retirement and health care benefits and that gap grows to 85 percent."

We have come to the point where it is time to start over.  Our federal government is out of control, and our Congressmen and Congresswomen are totally ignoring the voices of the people of America.  I firmly believe that if we do not elect a conservative-leaning Congress in November, we will not see unemployment rates drop below 8 per cent in the future.  There was a time when as Americans we did not have to pay a lot of attention to what our elected officials in Washington were doing.  Those days are gone.  Every American needs to be an informed voter and a government watchdog.  It's time to step up to the plate.

We have all heard the varied opinions on building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.  The building that would contain the mosque is the building where the tail section of one of the jets fell on September 11.  Generally speaking, New Yorkers and Americans seem to oppose the mosque.  For some reason, our elected officials seem determined to allow the mosque to be built.  One of the latest wrinkles in the discussion is the revealing of the fact that the people who want to build the mosque do not yet own all of the land involved.  As we debate the sensitivity of building a mosque at this location, ask who is paying for the mosque, and wonder about the beliefs of the person who will lead the mosque, one New Yorker seems to have come up with an interesting approach to the whole debate.

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Greg Gutfeld has announced that he is seeking investors to open a gay bar in an available commercial location near the mosque to be built near Ground Zero. 

Mr. Gutfeld states:

"This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

"As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world."

If we are truly to be open-armed and tolerant in allowing this mosque to be built, should we not, in turn, expect tolerance from those people building it?  Massachusetts, where because of a court decision gay marriage is legal, drove Catholic adoption agencies from the state by forcing them to choose between one of the major tenets of their religion and keeping the agencies open.  The state required them to allow gay couples to adopt children, but because of the teachings of their church, they could not in good conscience comply with that law, and left the state.  Should we require the people building that mosque to allow homosexuals on their staff?  Will any laws regarding civil rights be applied to this mosque?

This could be an interesting development in the situation.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article by Michael P. Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.   Mr. Fleischer explains why his is reluctant to expand his company and hire new people right now.

He explains the impact of the recently passed healthcare reform bill on his company:

"Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums--for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%."

He uses the example of an employee named Sally to illustrate the impact of government programs on his company:

"When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year."

He explains why he is not hiring right now:

"And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

"A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price."

If the Obama Administration truly wanted to see job growth, there would be no question about extending the Bush tax cuts--it would happen almost automatically.  As far as stating 'the cost of the tax cuts', we need to remember that the money being discussed belongs to the taxpayers--not the government.  Tax cuts DO NOT cost anything--they just put more money in the pockets of Americans.  If you want to argue that some Americans are more worthy than others to keep their own money, you may be living in the wrong country.

The source for this article is a Newsbusters article from June of this year.  Bill Press is a radio talk show host.  He is getting some press right now for his statements about Glenn Beck holding a rally at the LIncoln Memorial on the anniversary of the Martin Luther King, Jr., "I Have A Dream" speech.  Press wrote in a June 16 post of his blog, "If you ask me, that's like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 - at Ground Zero.  What the h___ were those bureaucrats at the Park Service thinking?"

Mr. Press overlooks the fact that the rally is a non-partisan event.  Glenn Beck's website describes the event as follows:

"Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

"Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America's service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation's founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.

"Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC."

It seems to me that Glenn Beck has the same rights as any other American to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  Many Americans at this time are feeling the need to re-connect with the founding principles of our country.  It appears that those people who will attend this rally are a reflection of that feeling.

On January 29,2010, U. S. News & World Report posted an article by John Rother, the executive vice president for policy and strategy for AARP.  The article deals with the idea of means testing social security benefits.  Mr. Rother opposes the idea, as do I.

On one of the political analysis shows recently, I heard a panelist say, "Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?"  The ignorance of that question amazes me.  One of the things to remember in discussing tax policy is that whatever behavior is rewarded by tax programs will increase, whatever behavior is taxed heavily will decrease.  To place a means test on social security benefits is to tell people that they will be penalized for saving money and planning for retirement.  It is to say to people that even though money was taken out of their paychecks since they began working, that money would go to people who had been less responsible.

Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?  Because he has had money taken from him all his working life on the promise that it would be paid to him in retirement.  What are we saying about the trustworthiless of the American government if we break that promise?  Should we instead be looking at the Congressmen who have been robbing the Social Security fund since the 1960's, when they opted out of Social Security and set up their own retirement fund.  Our tax dollars subsidize that fund and its generous retirement benefits, but oddly enough, Congress has never taken money out of their retirement fund and put it into the general treasury. 

In his article, Mr. Rother points out:

"Social Security's enduring popularity reflects the insurance nature of the program: Recipients have an earned right to their retirement benefits. Everyone who pays into the program is entitled to benefits. If you work long enough in covered employment, you qualify, no matter where you stand on the income ladder. Almost everyone with a job has a personal stake in keeping the program strong. And let's not forget the matter of fairness. Everyone who contributes through the payroll tax--including the affluent--deserves a fair return on his or her contributions. This expectation is not an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It's reasonable."

The government does not have the right to renege on the promise of Social Security.  The system does need to be revised to keep it solvent, but that should not involve penalizing people for planning ahead.

First of all, I would like to say that I love school teachers.  I raised one.  I also think that whatever kindergarten teachers are paid, it is not enough (that probably applies to high school and junior high school teachers as well).  I love little children, but the thought of more than one or two of them at a time is truly frightening to me.  That said, I will continue.

The Hill is reporting today that the House will be called back into session to pass the latest stimulus bill that provides $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits and $10 billion in education funding for the states.  After the bill is passed, the unions plan to ramp up their efforts to support Democrats in the November election.  Since the money will prevent many union members from losing their jobs, the union strategy is to attack those Republicans that oppose the spending.

I need to make a note here about the bill.  The bill includes $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits.  This is a down payment to the states to keep state budgets from collapsing under the weight of Obamacare.  Here is Massachusetts, we have already seen that government run healthcare results in financial and healthcare trends opposite than what was promised or expected (note:  expectations varied according to where you sit on the political spectrum).  The cost of health insurance has increased more quickly than in other parts of the country, people are dropping healthcare covereage because they cannot afford it, private healthcare companies are losing money (and if the trend continues, will no longer do business in this state), and lines in emergency lines are growing longer.

The article reports:

""We are set to launch a robust field plan across the country during the month of August, including advertising and grassroots events," said Gerry McEntee, president of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), in a statement. "We intend to highlight the clear choice Americans will make in November between Democrats who are working to protect jobs and move the economy forward and Republicans who are willing to wreck the economy for political gain.""

Why is spending $26 billion we do not have moving the economy forward? 

The article concludes:

"The United Steel Workers will also be active this month, said the union's president, Leo Gerard.

""During this recess, we will be ramping up our on-the-ground operations, especially in the heavy industrialized states where our membership is the strongest," Gerard said. "Our objective is to make sure we define the choice between the likes of John Boehner and a Nancy Pelosi, between a Harry Reid and a Sharron Angle.""

The name of this website is right wing granny.  As right wing granny, I have to say that my choice might not agree with his.

As an American, I realize that America plays a major part in what happens around the world.  We have been a world leader since World War II.  However, everything that happens in the world is not necessarily related to anything we have done or are doing.  To assume that the world revolves around America is not only self-centered, it is stupid.

CNS News posted an article yesterday about the Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 at the U.S. Department of State, which was released this week. 

According to the article:

"Counterterrorism Coordinator Daniel Benjamin said that the Obama administration's strategy to fight terrorism around the world includes determining America's own role in possibly increasing the number of terrorists." 

Note to Mr. Benjamin--terrorism has always existed.  It has been used against civilian populations during war ever since war has existed.  We have all heard stories of civilian populations being terrorized when a country is conquered.  Tyrannical governments have used forms of terrorism to control the populations they rule.  If you look at the way the Taliban treated the citizens of Afghanistan when they were in charge of the country, terrorism was really not a stretch for them.  There was little regard for innocent life, and there was no problem killing innocent people for a 'greater cause.' 

Isn't the root of terrorism the idea of killing innocent people for a 'greater cause?'  The logic of suicide attacks falls down when you try and figure out what they accomplish other than terror.  What did the blowing up of Flight 103 over Lockerbee, Scotland, actually accomplish?  It killed a lot of innocent people, saddened many families, and cost the world a lot of human potential, but what did it actually accomplish?  We need to understand that terrorism will exist regardless of what America does.  We are not capable of controlling or appeasing terrorists to the point where they will become peaceful world citizens.  It's not about us.  The people who have websites to encourage terrorism enjoy some perverted sense of power when innocent people are killed in the name of their god.  You notice that the people who host these websites are not the people blowing themselves up.

The article concludes:

"The report also outlines the increasing radicalization of people in the United States, including U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens abroad who are now actively planning and supporting terrorist attacks. Those include Anwar al-Aulaqi, who is linked to both Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people last year at Ft. Hood army base in Texas, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried to set off a bomb in a plane landing in Detroit, Mich., on Christmas Day."

The problem with terrorists is not America--the problem with terrorists is terrorists.

Stroube Smith at the Washington Times posted an article yesterday about the sixty-fifth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.   Mr. Smith points out that Hiroshima was not a military target, but a civilian city. 

The article concludes:

"In the war's aftermath, there was second-guessing as to whether Truman should have authorized the use of the bombs. In reality, he had no choice. No leader of a democracy could reject the use of a weapon that could save a single one of his people's lives.

"Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were staggering. Estimated losses from a campaign to take the first home island ranged from 300,000 to 1 million. The Army was ordering body bags and medical supplies and trying to find medics, nurses and doctors to deal with casualties of that magnitude."

President Truman made a difficult decision that saved both American and Japanese lives in the end.  The atomic bombs on Hiroshim and Nagasaki destroyed cities and killed civilians, but they ended a war and actually reduced the number of casualties.  We have currently forgotten how to fight with all we have.  I am hoping we will remember how to wage war successfully sometime in the near future.

Yesterday Bloomberg News reported that mortgage-finance company Fannie Mae has asked for $1.5 billion in aid from the U.S. Treasury Department after a 12th straight quarterly loss. 

According to the article:

"The Treasury seized Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac, the biggest sources of U.S. mortgage funding, in 2008 as souring subprime loans pushed the companies to brink of collapse. Including today's request, Fannie Mae has drawn $86.1 billion in aid. The growing tally has helped spur the Obama administration to solicit proposals to fix the companies, and prompted some lawmakers to demand their closure."

Fannie Mae issued many of the sub-prime mortgages that were one of the main causes of the housing bubble and the recession that has followed.

Meanwhile, The Washington Independent yesterday reported that a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks, will offer potential homeowners a mortgage with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance.  Here we go again.

The article points out:

"But there are concerns and problems intrinsic to purchasing a home with almost no money down. First and foremost, if the housing market turns down even a fractional amount, the homeowner will go "underwater" immediately. If the price of the house falls by even a bit, he will owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If he needs to sell it, he needs to come up with extra cash to pay the bank back. And the fact that the homeowner only had a thousand dollars to put down in the first place implies that he does not have much financial breathing room and might default."

Have we not yet learned from our experiences???

I really don't have a lot of respect for the ethics of the Obama Administration and the members of it.  Generally speaking, the actions of the people in the administration back up that feeling.

Byron York posted an article today at the Washington Examiner detailing a new process that is happening in civil rights lawsuits.  According to the article:

"In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were ofter settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasure and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims.  There was then a search for those victims--people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment--who stood to be conpensated.  After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over.  That money was returned to the defendant."

The artcle details recent changes in that procedure:

"Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan.  Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a "qualified organization" approved by the Justice Department.  And if there is not enough unspent money--that will be determined by the Department--then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the "qualified organization.""

Please follow the above link to the article and read the details of what is going on.  The good news in this is that Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is asking Eric Holder questions about exactly what is going on here.  So far Senator Grassley has not gotten an answer.  I am afraid we are seeing another example of the "Chicago shakedown" that has become the signature of the Obama Administration.

We are currently attempting to finish a war in Iraq and trying to win a war in Afghanistan.  Congress has the right to question the military leaders in charge of these wars as it is responsible for funding both wars.  Therefore, it was not a surprise to see General Petraeus, the former villain of the American left, now a hero of the left, being questioned in Congress.  What was surprising, however, was the direction of the questions from one Congresswoman.

YouTube posted a video taken in June of this year of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords expressing her concern to General Petraeus as to 'how green our war effort in Afghanistan was.'  While I appreciate her concern for the environment, I really wonder if that is a valid line of questioning when American soldiers are at risk.  One of the impressive things about the video is the amazing manners of General Petraeus.  He handles the question honestly and respectfully.

In another Congressional oversight hearing in April, Congressman Hank Johnson, commenting on the influx of an additional 8,000 American troops in Guam, told the gathered members of Congress and military officials, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."  Admiral Willard, who was being questioned by the Congressional Committe managed to keep a straight face as he stated, "We don't anticipate that." 

As a close relative of a military officer currently on active duty, I have met a lot of our current military.  I have been thoroughly impressed by the character, dedication, poise, intelligence, and manners of our armed forces.  Needless to say, the Congressional committees that periodically question them are lacking in many of these traits. 

This is from the website SpendingRevolt.com.  It says it all.

Yesterday's Kansas City Star posted an Associated Press article detailing the results of the election held in that state. 

According to the article:

"About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

"The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalies starting in 2014."

There are some real questions as to the actual value of the vote (federal law trumps state law), but the vote is an indication of public opinion on Obamacare. 

I live in Massachusetts, where a state healthcare reform law went into effect in 2006.  This state health insurance reform was said to be one of the models for Obamacare.  Well, the results have been mixed at best.  There was a letter to the editor in my local paper yesterday from a Massachusetts couple stating that their monthly cost for the wife's health insurance has increased $50 a month.  The couple is planning to cancel their health insurance at the end of August because they cannot afford to pay the increase.  Since the passage of the state health insurance reform, Massachusetts health insurance rates have increased rapidly.  The governor recently turned down requests from major health insurance providers for rate increases that would cover their increased expenses caused by the reform. 

In addition Dark Daily reports:

"In May, the four largest health insurers in Massachusetts reported first quarter losses that reached a total of $150 million. Three of these insurers drew down reserves. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which is the largest health insurer in the state, reported a quarterly loss of $65.2 million, along with an operating loss of $95.5 million. It drew down its operating reserve by $55 million to handle those losses, as well as losses anticipated to occur during the second quarter of 2010."

The article at Dark Daily also points out that small employers in Massachusetts are beginning to drop health insurance coverage of employees and paying the penalty to the state instead.  The state will collect money under that arrangement, but there are no guarantees that the money collected would be spent in any way that would benefit or support healthcare.  That is ultimately the direction in which Obamacare will lead us.

Yesterday's Investors.com reported on two recent events in Virginia.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has pursued two legal cases recently that are important to the entire country.  Attorney General Cuccinelli (along with Attorney Generals from several other states)has filed a lawsuit challenging the medical overhaul passed in March.  On Monday, Virginia federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Virginia's suit had merit and could proceed, dismissing a motion by Health and Human Services to have it thrown out.  The second case has to do with the role of policemen in Virginia in dealing with criminals who are here illegally.

The article points out:

"Cuccinelli has issued a legal opinion that says Virginia police are allowed under the law to check the immigration status of those encountered in the course of normal police work. "It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested," he wrote.

"He believes states have a right to enforce federal immigration laws as much as they have a right and duty to enforce federal speed limits. The lives and safety of their citizens are at stake, and splitting constitutional hairs does not keep people from being raped, robbed and killed by other people who just should not be here."

Virginia has an Attorney General who sees protecting the rights of the citizens of his state as part of his responsibility.  If only Massachusetts...

Originally the mosque to be built near Ground Zero was to be called the Cordoba Initiative/American Society for Muslim Advancement mosque and community center.  That sounds pretty harmless until you take a closer look at the role of Cordoba in Muslim history.  Cordoba is a city in Spain (called Andalusia by the Muslims) which was captured by Muslims in 716 and became the capital of their caliphate in that area.  The city was freed, recaptured and finally freed in 1236.   Cordoba represents a Muslim caliphate.  The history of Muslim conquest is that they win a victory in battle and erect a mosque.  If you remember the celebrations by Palestinians and some Muslims on September 11, you understand that the successful attack on the World Trade Center is considered a victory by radical Islam.  That is one of the reasons they would like to build a mosque there rather than in another part of New York City.  Just for the record, there are many non-radical Muslims who were horrified by the events of that day.

There are some serious questions regarding the funding of this mosque as well as the appropriateness of the location.

Today's New York Post reports:

"The Anti-Defamation League, the nation's leading Jewish rights group, came out last week against the mosque and Islamic community center.

""Some legitimate questions have been raised [about possible ties to] "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values," the group said.

""Ultimately, this is not a question of rights but a question of what is right," it added.  "In our judgement, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause Some victims more pain unnecessarily, and that is not right."

"Families of 9/11 victims have also protested the plan over the past year."

According to the concept of Freedom of Religion which is a basis of our Constitution, the Muslims have every right to build their mosque at Ground Zero.  However, if their true intention is to encourage tolerance and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, they will not continue with their plans.

Today's Wall Street Journal points out:

"...how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Imams, whose ostentatious prayers--apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006--ended in a lawsuit. The imams sued. The airlines paid.

"Dr. Zuhdi Jasser--devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy--says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam."

"The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice."

Just because the building of this mosque may be legal, that doesn't make it right.

Hot Air posted an article Sunday about the Chevy Volt.  The Volt is Chevy's new electric car that sells for $41,000.  The article states, "However, with federal subsidies, you could pay as little as $33,500."   Is it time to ask, "Who pays for federal subsidies?"

To give you an idea of how well the government runs business, the article explains:

"Almost four hundred million dollars in federal subsidies were pumped directly into the design and production of the Volt.  The initial production run consists of just ten thousand units, with 45,000 more planned for 2012 if sales are good.  This would add just over $7200 more in taxpayer subsidies to each Volt produced over the next two years.  Since 2012 production will be scaled back if early sales are disappointing, it might be more logical to add the subsidies to the first 10,000 units only, which would leave early adopters outside of California paying $33,500 for a car which actually costs $81,000 per unit, with taxpayers picking up the remainder.  It's actually even worse than that, because GM expects to lose money on every Volt sale.  Those losses will be spread among other GM products, or perhaps wiped out with further taxpayer subsidies."

The article concludes:

"The number of Chevy Volts desired by those free people is zero.  By government decree, there will be up to 55,000 of them gathering dust in the far corners of three-car garages by 2012.  The government didn't subsidize this boondoggle.  The "government" doesn't subsidize anything.  You do.Imagine what  the taxpayers of America might have done with the billions taken away from them to produce those cars, divide that lost value by 55,000, and you will begin to comprehend the true cost of a Chevy Volt."

In the attempt to produce a 'green car', the government has again misspent large sums of taxpayer money.  The fact that the car will sell for slightly less than half of what it cost to make it is typical of a government business decision.  The Obama Administration has very few people in it who have business experience.  They need to leave the running of businesses to the people who know how to run them.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner reported:

"Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia today denied the motion by the U.S. Department of Justice that Virginia's challenge of the constitutionality of Obamacare be dismissed."

This is the first of many challenges to Obamacare.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the case on the basis that the requirement that every American purchase a government-approved health insurance policy exceeds the government's authority under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The article concludes:

"Specifically, the Court wrote that '[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.'"

"The Virginia AG added that "this lawsuit is not about health care, it's about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land--the Constitution"

"For that reason, he said, "the government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause."

"A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18."

This is a case that will impact the freedom of every American.  It will also indicate whether or not we are still a country governed by our Constitution.  It is a very important case.  We need a new Congress that will REPEAL AND REPLACE this horrible law, but we also need to make sure an unconstitutional healthcare bill cannot be passed in the future.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, "Finger-Pointing Reaches Sell-By Date."  Pollster Scott Rasmussen has been asking voters who is responsible for America's economic problems since May 2009.  The poll released yesterday found that 47% of Americans blame George Bush for the bad economy, and 48% blame President Obama. 

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

"Actually, though, that headline is misleading. The body of the story indicates that the choice (as in prior polls) was between "Obama's policies" and "the recession that began under Bush." So not all though who voted "Bush" blamed the recession on his administration's policies."

The article concludes:

"One more notable point: here, as on nearly every issue, there is a big divide between "mainstream Americans" and the "political class." Sixty-one percent of mainstream Americans blame the policies of the Obama administration over the recession he inherited, while 87 percent of the political class blame Bush. That's convenient, of course. A final populist touch: 62 percent of likely voters trust their own judgment more than Obama's on economic issues. Makes it hard to exert a whole lot of leadership."

I don't know if there is something in the air or water in Washington, D. C., but our representatives and elected officials no longer represent us.  It's time for the voters to pick up their 'broom' and vote everyone out of office who is not representing them.  When bills are passed over the objections of more than half of the American people, we don't need to educate the American people--we need a new Congress and a new President.  We can't vote out the President until 2012, but we can change Congress.  Make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right!

There are two sources for this article--an article by Republican Congressman Mike Pence at Townhall.com and an article by Larry Kudlow in yesterday's National Review Online.

Larry Kudlow points out that the numbers show that tax cuts are not the cause of our current financial crisis.  He reminds us that  in the '80s and '90s, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, the debt-to-GDP ratio averaged around 40 percent.  Mr. Kudlow states, "During those years government debt held by the public did increase $2.4 trillion.  But household wealth jumped $32 trillion."

The problem is not the tax cuts--the problem is the spending.  Mr. Kudlow reminds us:

"And let's not forget that tax rates are coming down around the world, both for individuals and businesses. High tax rates in the U.S. will cause us to lose the global race for capital. At some point the question of taxes is really an issue of economic freedom. Let people keep more of what they earn. Marginal tax rates produce huge incentive effects for work, investment, and risk. Higher tax rates undermine economic growth and entrepreneurship. So let's go for tax reform, with flatter rates and a broader base that gets rid of unnecessary deductions, credits, exemptions, loopholes, and special-interest subsidies."

Congressman Pence tells us that the small business owners in America face the highest tax increase in history on January 1, 2011.  These tax increases kick-in automatically if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Congressman Pence states:

"America's private sector has suffered enough for the past 18 months under the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work and unemployment hovers near a heartbreaking 10 percent. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reported that optimism among small businesses "is dismal, capital expenditures are at 35-year lows and small businesses are still cutting more jobs than they are adding." The NFIB also said that Congress must act quickly to ensure no tax increases for business owners in January."

Congressman Pence states, "That's why House Republicans are determined to fight this tax increase with everything we've got. We've been hearing from the American people at AmericaSpeakingOut.com and we understand that the problem is not that Washington doesn't tax enough. The problem is that Washington spends too much, and the solution is leadership in Congress that will make the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to rein in spending."  

Tax cuts are not the problem--spending is the problem.  It's time to take the credit card away from our current Congress.  Check voting records of your Congressmen before you vote in November.  If your Congressmen have been spending wildly, replace them with new Congressmen who understand that they will be voted out of office if they continue in that direction.

The Obama Administration has attacked Fox News on numerous occasions.  In October, Fox News reported on an effort by the White House to prevent Fox News from being included in news interviews of "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. 

In case you have forgotten:

"The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions." 

This effort was unsuccessful.  The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of them would interview Kenneth Feinberg unless Fox was included.  They stood up for the freedom of the press and refused to be bullied into excluding Fox News. 

The President has made numerous comments ragarding Fox News during his time in office, but the network's ratings keep rising, and the organization is respected by its colleagues.

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that Fox News will be moving to the front row of the White House briefing room.  Helen Thomas' former seat (front row center) will go to Associated Press, and Fox News will get Associated Press' current front row seat.  These seating changes were voted on unanimously by The White House Correspondents Association.

Congratulations to Major Garrett, who covers the White House for Fox News.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I in danger of becoming one, so there are aspects of this story I do not claim to understand; however, I am posting it because I think it is important.

Yesterday at National Review Online's healthcare blog, John R. Graham posted an article about the impact of two recent decisions in Massachusetts regarding gay marriage on the healthcare debate.  Huh? 

According to the article:

"In the first case, concerning benefits of federal employees, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA was unconstitutional on the grounds that it had no rational basis, and that it violated the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the federal government's denying benefits to homosexual employees' partners was invalid."

"In the second case, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleged that DOMA invaded its power to define marriage, because it conditioned the transfer of federal funds to the Commonwealth on a particular definition of marriage. (The examples were federal funding of MassHealth, the Commonwealth's Medicaid program, and veterans' cemeteries owned by the Commonwealth.)  Furthermore, the Commonwealth asserted that the U.S. imposed an undue administrative burden on its personnel policies, because the Commonwealth recognized homosexual couples as married but had to deduct their Social Security and Medicare taxes as single persons. In this case, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA violated the equal-protection clause, as well as the Tenth Amendment."

This is getting interesting.  This is the equivalent of striking down the Arizona immigration law while letting the sanctuary cities stand.  (At the moment that is actually true!)  The argument being made in Massachusetts is that because there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to define marriage, the states have control of marriage--not the federal government.  As far as I know, there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to force people to buy health insurance.  Hmmm.

The article concludes:

"Judge Tauro found that state law trumps federal law even in cases of benefits to federal employees or federal funding of state benefits. Imagine if a state could overturn Obamacare's mandate to buy health insurance, but keep the federal subsidies for the health-insurance exchanges! That would shake things up.

"After that? Repeal and replace."

I have no idea how this will turn out, but it is ironic that a judge defending gay marriage may provide the basis for lawsuits by the states against Obamacare.

According to yesterday's Washington Times:

"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that two restaurants in San Diego violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the counters where the staff prepared tacos and burritos were too high and blocked the view for people in wheelchairs.

"Choosing from among the ingredients lining the counter and watching staff assemble the meal is what the court called the "Chipotle experience.""

The lawsuit was brought by Maurizio Antoninetti, a paraplegic college professor who has an extensive history of filing ADA-related lawsuits,   He claimed (and the court agreed) that he "was denied the "Chipotle experience" because the counter was too tall, at 45 inches. Justice Department guidelines say 36 inches is the maximum allowable height under ADA for such a counter."

It should be noted that Chipotle's Restaurant personnel had taken the time to show Mr. Antoninetti samples of the individual foods in serving spoons or plastic cups and assembling his order near the cash register or at a table in the dining room.  The court said that this was not sufficient.

The article also pointed out:

"Chipotle said the company has voluntarily retrofitted all of its restaurants in California with a counter design to allow for wheelchair accessibility."

The article also points out that:

"Mr. Antoninetti, who became paralyzed as the result of an injury he suffered while serving in the Italian army, has filed ADA-related lawsuits against more than 20 businesses since immigrating to the U.S. in 1991. Court records state that Mr. Antoninetti, in all but one instance, never returned to the businesses after the lawsuits. The lower court found that Mr. Antoninetti's "purported desire to return to the restaurants is neither concrete nor sincere, or supported by the facts," leading the court to reject his request that it order Chipotle to lower the counter."

There are valid situations that need to be addressed in terms of accessibility for handicapped people.  I have experienced challenges on various occasions with only a young child and a baby stroller, so I can imagine what people in a wheelchair face on a daily basis.  The problem with this suit is that the people in the restaurant made a sincere effort to help this person and his response was a lawsuit.

It also might be a good idea to keep in mind that this was a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  This is the most frequently overturned court in the country.  I also think we really need to take another look at this type of lawsuit.  The restaurant staff made every effort to accommodate Mr. Antoninetti, Chipotle has begun refitting its restaurants to make them more wheelchair accessible.  Mr. Antoninetti's response was a lawsuit.  That seems a little tacky to me. 

Today's Washington Examiner posted an article on the Obama Administration's efforts to push a Small Business Lending Fund bill through Congress. 

"Touted as a means to open up lending for credit-starved small businesses, in practice this fund would continue the very politicization of the financial industry that has voters upset and the economy in shambles. Senate Republicans have so far been successful at blocking this bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to bring it to a test vote on Monday."

As with almost all federal programs, the money comes with strings attached.  The fund would allow the Treasury Department to give $30 billion to community banks. 

According to the article:

"Stephen Spruiell of National Review notes that each recipient bank applying for funds would be required to submit a small-business lending plan to "describe how the applicant's business strategy and operating goals will allow it to address the needs of small businesses in the areas it serves, as well as a plan to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach, where appropriate.""

As usual when the government interferes with banks, politics will determine who gets loans rather than creditworthiness.  This was the kind of government intervention that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

The article concludes:

"We already know the dangers of encouraging lenders to lower lending standards by dangling taxpayer dollars before them: Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes that almost two-thirds of all bad mortgages, many of which are now defaulting, were created to satisfy government requirements or to get government largesse. It is always best to be wary of Washington politicians and bureaucrats bearing gifts."

It seems as if we would have learned our lesson by now.